Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 2003 2003 (6) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 341 to 354 of 354 Records

• 2003 (6) TMI 15
  

  By this writ application the writ petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – maintainability - I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits; simply because I am not willing to decide such question before initiation of criminal proceedings, I have decided not to entertain this application. The writ application is, thus, dismissed.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 14
  

  Penalty under section 18(1)(c) - "Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the cancellation of the penalties levied by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(c) of the Wealth-tax Act?" - we, therefore, cannot presume that the assessee had a mala fide intention to furnish inaccurate particulars. As mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence and as both the appellate authorities have arrived at a finding that the assessee had no intention to furnish inaccurate particulars of the asset in question, we would not like to come to a different conclusion with regard to the intention of the assessee. - it cannot be said that the Tribunal had committed an error

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 13
  

  Tax avoidance - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in finding that tax was avoided without ascertaining whether there is any revenue loss on account of non-inclusion of the income in question in the assessee's assessment and its inclusion in the assessment of the sister concerns?" - the Tribunal was right when it came to the conclusion that tax was avoided and for coming to the said conclusion it was not necessary for the Tribunal to ascertain whether any loss was caused to the Revenue - we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 12
  

  Power of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to receive additional evidence - Assessing Officer was of the view that there is no evidence of the identity and capacity of the creditors and the genuineness of the loan transactions and hence made an addition u/s 68 - In the appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) the assessee had produced two confirmation letters which were rejected by the CIT (Appeals) - Neither the Assessing Officer, nor the first appellate authority had any case that the assessee was given several opportunities to produce the confirmatory letters and that the assessee did not avail of the said opportunity by obtaining and producing the confirmatory letters from the two persons – Thus, CIT(A) was not justified in refusing to admit additional evidence – Further held that processing charges received will not constitute part of the export turnover since only sale proceeds of goods or merchandise alone will form part of the turnover

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 11
  

  Imposition of interest under section 201(1A) – non deduction of tax at source on payments made to employees - Assessing Officer took the view that the assessee had paid bonus which forms part of the salary and therefore there was statutory obligation cast on the assessee to deduct tax from such payment - Orders were passed under section 201 declaring the assessee-in-default - orders of the assessing authority passed under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act are legal and valid since there was no period of limitation in view of the omission of section 231 from April 1,1989, prior to the expiry of the period of limitation provided in the said section – Thus, imposition of interest was liable to be sustained

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 10
  

  Capital/Revenue expenditure - Actual cost of assests – Depreciation - payment of gratuity to these employees till the date of transfer was deferred by reason of the terms of the agreement and the liability accrued till that date and payable by the transferor was taken over by the assessee. Thus, this liability became part of the consideration paid for the assets transferred and is liable to be added to the consideration mentioned in the agreement. It cannot be construed otherwise. This is to be treated as capital expenditure – Thus, Tribunal was justified in law in directing to recompute the cost of the assets treating the gratuity liability as part of the actual cost of the assets and allow depreciation accordingly

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 9
  

  Contention of the petitioner is that he has filed an appeal against the block assessment order, which is pending before the CIT (Appeals), - An application filed under section 220(6) has been rejected by the Assistant CIT after a period of more than one year, on the ground that more than a year has passed and he had not deposited the amount and therefore the demand cannot be stayed - A perusal of the impugned order shows that discretion which has been exercised by CIT in rejecting the application, does not give any reason nor has it been exercised judiciously, therefore, liable to be set aside. – Petition allowed

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 8
  

  Whether the Assessing Officer in the instant case had jurisdiction under the Act to refer the question of cost of construction of a building constructed by the assessee to the Departmental Valuation Officer. - According to us, section 142(2) of the Act enables the Assessing Officer to refer the question of cost of construction of a building for the limited purpose of gathering information regarding the cost of construction. It did not have any binding effect on the Assessing Officer. It only had the effect of information gathered in an enquiry. – As per sub-section (2) of 142, “For the purpose of obtaining full information in respect of the income or loss of any person, the Income-tax Officer may make such enquiry as he considers necessary." – Thus, Assessing Officer was well within his power to gather information regarding the cost of construction by making a reference to the Executive Engineer, Valuation Cell.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 7
  

  Review - order was not detailed due to a bona fide mistake - In impugned order application preferred by the respondent-assessee u/s 254(2), has been allowed. – Revenue contend that this course amounts to reviewing the earlier order which is not permissible under the law - In fact, in the present case a finding in favour of the respondent-assessee was already recorded in the main order passed by the Tribunal on July 13, 2001. The said main order passed by the Tribunal on July 13, 2001, was not challenged by the Revenue at any stage. In fact, the Tribunal has already recorded a finding against the Revenue but the operative part of the order was not detailed due to a bona fide mistake. By the impugned order the operative part of the earlier order has been clarified. Against such an order we find that no appeal would be maintainable as no substantial question of law is involved in the said appeal.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 6
  
  Issues involved: Appeal challenging order for interest on delayed service tax payment.
  
  Summary:
  1. The appeal was filed by the General Manager Telecom BSNL, Amritsar against an order demanding interest on delayed service tax payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the demand, stating that even though the service tax was being paid daily, delay in crediting it to the Central Government's account made the appellant liable for interest.
  
  2. The appellant argued that they followed the prescribed procedure for payment, which involved sending statements to reconcile telephone charges and service tax. A circular in 1998 allowed direct payment of service tax, eliminating delays. The appellant contended that post-1999, there was no delay in making the book entry for service tax payment.
  
  3. The appellant cited similar cases where interest demands were dropped based on explanations provided. They highlighted that the same Commissioner (Appeals) had accepted identical contentions in previous cases, indicating inconsistency in decisions.
  
  4. The Departmental Representative argued that the liability to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is mandatory, regardless of past decisions. Payment must be credited to the Central Government's account under the specified head for it to be considered made.
  
  5. The Tribunal noted that the appellant, a Central Government department, followed prescribed procedures until 1999. Due to a circular in 1998, direct crediting of service tax was implemented, eliminating delays. Considering the unique circumstances where the delay was due to following approved procedures and daily deposits to the Central Government's account, the Tribunal set aside the order for interest payment.
  
  This judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to prescribed procedures and the impact of circulars on payment processes, ultimately leading to the decision to relieve the appellant from the liability to pay interest on delayed service tax payment.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 5
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai allowed the appeal filed by the appellants regarding the late payment of service tax. The Tribunal referred to a government decision regarding cheque payments and clarified that if the cheque is not dishonored and the payment is made before the due date, no penalty or interest should be imposed. The Revenue representative agreed that the appellants had merit in their case, and the appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 4
  
  Issues:
  1. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for failure to furnish service tax returns within due dates.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  - The appeals involved penalties imposed for delays in filing service tax returns under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Deputy Commissioner and the Commissioner reviewed the penalties, leading to enhancements in the penalty amounts in each case.
  - The Commissioner argued that the minimum penalty under Section 76 is Rs. 100 per day, with a maximum of Rs. 200 per day, and that the absence of a comma after 'rupees one hundred' implies that the phrase 'per day' applies to both 'rupees one hundred' and 'rupees two hundred'. This interpretation was challenged by the appellants.
  - The appellants contended that punctuation is a minor element in statutory interpretation and should not be the controlling factor. They cited previous judgments and argued that penalties should be imposed judiciously, considering the circumstances of each case and the presence of mens rea.
  - The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. It noted that the absence of a comma does not automatically imply a per day penalty for 'rupees one hundred'. The Tribunal emphasized that penalties should not be imposed unless there is deliberate defiance of the law or dishonest conduct. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had appropriately exercised discretion in imposing penalties based on individual case facts.
  - The Tribunal concluded that the review authority's decision to enhance penalties solely based on the interpretation of Section 76 was not justified. It held that penalties should be imposed judiciously, considering the circumstances of each case, and allowed all the appeals accordingly.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  1. Delay in depositing service tax payable on Telecom service.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The appeals before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI involved a demand for interest due to alleged delays in depositing service tax payable on Telecom service by the appellant. The issue pertained to the timing of payment of service tax as required under Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant contended that there was no delay in crediting the service tax to the Central Government's account since the entire amounts payable by customers for telecom service and service tax were being deposited into the Central Government's account through Post Offices or other collection centers at the time of recovery itself. The appellant, being a Central Government Department during the relevant period, followed the arrangement for collection of telecom charges where customers made payments to the Central Government's account directly. The appellant argued that any delay in book entry for service tax was due to the separate compilation and tallying of amounts for telecom charges and service tax.
  
  2. The Departmental Representative (DR) argued that as per Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994, service tax collected during a calendar month should be paid to the Central Government's credit by the 15th of the following month. The DR emphasized that the date of payment of service tax should be considered the date on which the book entry is made, transferring the amount to the service tax head. According to the DR, the fact that the entire amount collected for telecom charges and service tax was deposited into the Central Government's credit from the time of collection was irrelevant in determining the date of service tax payment.
  
  3. The Tribunal noted that during the relevant period, the appellant, as a part of the Central Government, followed the accounting rules set by the Government for the collection of telecom charges and service taxes. The appellant had no discretion in collecting or disbursing amounts other than as stipulated by the Government. All amounts due from customers for telecom charges and service tax were deposited in the Central Government's account through Post Offices or other designated centers. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that there was no delay on their part in making service tax payments to the Central Government, as they followed the prescribed collection and accounting procedures.
  
  4. Consequently, the appeals were allowed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, NEW DELHI, with any consequential relief granted to the appellant. The judgment highlighted the importance of following the prescribed procedures for service tax payments, especially when the collection and accounting mechanisms were established by the Government itself.

  ---

• 2003 (6) TMI 2
  
  The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal for refund of service tax paid by cellular operator on leased circuits. The tribunal held that no service tax was leviable during the period in question, so the payment made was erroneous. Refund was granted as provisions for unjust enrichment did not apply, and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act was not applicable to service tax. The amount of service tax collected for the periods 1998-99 and 1999-2000 is to be refunded to the appellants.

  ---

1 ....1415161718